A group blog to promote discussion, debate and insight into the history, particularly religious, of America's founding. Any observations, questions, or comments relating to the blog's theme are welcomed.

I assume that you refer to the substance and merit of her arguments. Are you saying that exposing fraud is politically irrelevant?

Her work has become a baseline for correcting the historical record that Barton has been distorting since he anointed himself a historian. While it can be argued that Barton is more of a poor, ignorant, confused and misguided soul rather than a charlatan and liar, most of the factual work that Chris lays out I've found to be accurate.

And, given the number of Christians that have also been exposing his chicanery, this is not a Atheist v. Christian matter but a how do we teach the past issue, honestly and accurately or distorted in order to create a dominion myth.

Hopefully, we soon have the second volume of Liars For Jesus to fact check and kick around.

Barton's critics have their own share of sloppiness. At issue here is WS Smith, of something called the "Fort Worth Atheist Examiner."

Barton was called out on this lie. As cited in the article "Wallbuilders Shoddy Workmanship" by Rob Boston (in the magazine Church & State), Barton admitted he had made the quotes up. He was pressured into publishing a pamphlet entitled "Unconfirmed Quotations" in which he admitted such. The word he used was "spurious" which, for anyone who doesn't know, means "of falsified or erroneously attributed origin" (4). In other words, he made them up.

Of course it is, when it is. Barton and Rodda are both ultimately motivated by more than just the truth. Since Barton is at best sloppy he is useful to Rodda for her political ends. What would he gain by drawing attention to her?

If she wants him to sue her, she needs to get more famous and start playing bad faith politics.

Barton and Rodda are both ultimately motivated by more than just the truth.

So, Barton wages a decades long relentless campaign using misinformation and distorted history and when someone does the research and wages a counter campaign to correct the historical record, that someone is over the top. I get it.

Nice attempt at a false equivalency.

As to "whatever," there are a few people here abouts that get their knickers in a twist over the claim that all the founders were agnostics and deists. Is relentlessly objecting to this characterization also petty and deserving of a whatever? I didn't think so.

Hey guys ... All I'm doing here is asking (in my own unique way) the same question that lots of other people are asking. Why is Barton filing this lawsuit now, and why did he file it against the people he filed it against? So many other people have said exactly the same things about Barton that the defendants said, and, more importantly, are continuing to say these things. But Barton chooses to sue three people who are essentially irrelevant -- two former Texas Board of Ed candidates who put out a YouTube campaign ad in 2010 that only got like 7,500 views, and an obscure writer who wrote an article about him that hardly anybody was even aware of until Barton sued him over it. Meanwhile, there are much more well known people who are constantly, and currently, calling him a liar, etc. Why isn't he going after Peter Montgomery and Kyle Mantyla over at PFAW's Right Wing Watch, who have a steady stream of posts coming out about him, or Warren Throckmorton, or Rob Boston at American United, or ME? I constantly call him a liar (as you guys well know), and I do it in places like Huffington Post and other much more widely read blogs than where W.S. Smith's 2010 article appeared. Can't you see why those of us who constantly write about Barton would be wondering what his motives are and speculating that this lawsuit is just some sort of publicity stunt/scare tactic thing rather than Barton having any sort of legitimate claim that the three defendants have somehow hurt his business and damaged his reputation in any way that would warrant a lawsuit against them?

.Perhaps Barton thinks he is "choosing his battles wisely". That is, if his purpose is to ensure that only weaker and less capable persons are given any recognition. For, if he gives recognition to more able opponents, the result would be that recognizing more capable opponents would have the effect of elevating them to his level of popularity? Which might put him in the position of having to defend himself against you in front of his power base--for example..Do you think his mind might be that devious?,

Yeah, Phil, that's pretty much what everyone I've talked to has said -- that Barton is going after "soft targets." But what nobody understands is why he would even want to open the can of worms that he's just opened with this. Far from scaring any of his more prolific critics, if that was his intent, it's having exactly the opposite effect and just drawing them out even more.

Rob Boston, for example, quickly put out a piece on AU's blog giving the specific examples of Barton speaking to white supremacist and anti-semitic groups that the Texas Board of Ed candidates were referring to in their YouTube campaign ad, pointing out that he himself had written about this way back in 1993, the Anti-Defamation League had written about it in 1994, and that Media Matters had brought it up just last year. Rob asked the basically the same question about the charge against the former BoE candidates -- why isn't Barton suing the ADL or Media Matters -- that I asked about the charge against the examiner.com writer -- why isn't he suing someone like PFAW's Right Wing Watch, me, or any of the other writers and bloggers who have called him a liar.

.It makes sense that Barton is "choosing his battles" KNOWING his power base won't pay attention to anyone outside Barton's choice. And, in so doing, he will appear to be knocking down ALL his oppostion; thus, making him look as though he is the righteous one..I think we call that cowardice..